Pavement cycling

Just wondering, seeing as so many pavements are now sprouting blue shared use signs, why do they not
just do away with the law against cycling on pavements period. I'm not a fan of pavement cycling but
it does seem crazy to spend all that money marking them all up as shared use while fining people for
cycling on the ones they haven't yet marked.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt
the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw

 

Hello Tony

I reckon the main problem with doing as you suggest would be to increase the all too prevelant
perception that cyclists have no place on the road network.

Marking pavements up as dual use is just a box checking exercise for local councils who wish to be
seen to be encouraging cycling but who lack the political will to implement facilities that would
actually make the road network safer for cyclists. Can`t go upsetting the drivers you know... all
that slowing down and taking care adds whole seconds to the journey time and using brakes and
changing gear is just sooo inconvenient.

In fact dual use facilities are generally a pain to use - not withstanding the risks of / to
pedestrians, they often do not go where people want to go (unlike roads), have poor design features
and increase exposure to accidents at junctions.

Will Plummer "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just wondering, seeing as so many pavements are now sprouting blue shared use signs, why do they
> not just do away with the law against cycling on pavements period. I'm not a fan of pavement
> cycling but it does seem
crazy
> to spend all that money marking them all up as shared use while fining people for cycling on the
> ones they haven't yet marked.
>
> Tony
>
> --
> http://www.raven-family.com
>
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to
> adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." George
> Bernard Shaw

 

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just wondering, seeing as so many pavements are now sprouting blue shared use signs, why do they
> not just do away with the law against cycling on pavements period. I'm not a fan of pavement
> cycling but it does seem
crazy
> to spend all that money marking them all up as shared use while fining people for cycling on the
> ones they haven't yet marked.

Maybe it would be better to ONLY declare a pavement dual use when it clearly meets defined minimum
criteria such as those used in Germany. That would, at a stroke, eliminate almost all such pavements
in this country.

You could then ensure that every school provided proper cycle training to 10 to 12 year olds.

Finally, machine gun nests mounted on the corners of streets could be introduced to eliminate the
problem once and for all -- and would have the added advantage that they could form the basis of a
defence mechanism when GW puts us on the list of countries to invade.

T

 

Will Plummer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Tony
>
> I reckon the main problem with doing as you suggest would be to increase the all too prevelant
> perception that cyclists have no place on the road network.
>
> Marking pavements up as dual use is just a box checking exercise for local councils who wish to be
> seen to be encouraging cycling but who lack the political will to implement facilities that would
> actually make the road network safer for cyclists. Can`t go upsetting the drivers you know... all
> that slowing down and taking care adds whole seconds to the journey time and using brakes and
> changing gear is just sooo inconvenient.
>
> In fact dual use facilities are generally a pain to use - not withstanding the risks of / to
> pedestrians, they often do not go where people want to go (unlike roads), have poor design
> features and increase exposure to accidents at junctions.
>

I agree with everything you say but that wasn't my point. It was that since many (often totally
unsuitable) pavements are marked for cycling while elsewhere similar pavements are subject to on the
spot fines for cycling, where's the logic in having any differentiation between pavements and
spending lots of money to make that dubious differentiation.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to
adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George
Bernard Shaw

 

> In fact dual use facilities are generally a pain to use - not withstanding the risks of / to
> pedestrians, they often do not go where people want to
go
> (unlike roads), have poor design features and increase exposure to
accidents
> at junctions.

I have to agree. I sometimes do a long commute home (Stevenage to Chesham) via Milton Keynes. (I
get a lift in, so not that brave). I used the MK cycle ways a few times at first, but I refuse
to use them.

There are no directions given for thru' traffic, so you have no idea which way to go, all the signs
are for little areas of MK. The cycleways go up, down, round and all over the place, really c**p if
all you want is to go straight ahead and find the A4146 to Leighton Buzzard! (and then the nice
quiet roads around Wing, Tring, ding-a-ling).

The main roads with all those 3 lane roundabouts are a bit hairy though, but so far the motorists
have always been fairly kind and let me get on with it. No "Oi, use the cycleways" shouts so far.

Niv.

 

"Niv" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > In fact dual use facilities are generally a pain to use - not
withstanding
> > the risks of / to pedestrians, they often do not go where people want to
> go
> > (unlike roads), have poor design features and increase exposure to
> accidents
> > at junctions.
>
> I have to agree. I sometimes do a long commute home (Stevenage to
Chesham)
> via Milton Keynes. (I get a lift in, so not that brave). I used the MK cycle ways a few times at
> first, but I refuse to use them.
>
> There are no directions given for thru' traffic, so you have no idea which way to go, all the
> signs are for little areas of MK. The cycleways go up, down, round and all over the place, really
> c**p if all you want is to go straight ahead and find the A4146 to Leighton Buzzard! (and then the
> nice quiet roads around Wing, Tring, ding-a-ling).
>
> The main roads with all those 3 lane roundabouts are a bit hairy though,
but
> so far the motorists have always been fairly kind and let me get on with it. No "Oi, use the
> cycleways" shouts so far.
>
> Niv.
>
> The MK cycleways are fun aren`t they?

I use them fairly regularly, being not quite brave enough for the grid roads at peak times - they
are fine if you`re not in too much of hurry and like to climb steep hills after losing all your
momentum to a junction/kerb/blind bend/ pedestrian with dog on 10m lead at the bottom of the
downhill bit. I like to view them as a "challenge" - trying to maintain a reasonable average speed
demands intense concentration, forward planning and the ability to stop and turn on a sixpence. Not
to mention being able to look 3 ways at once at junctions.

Will Plummer

 

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just wondering, seeing as so many pavements are now sprouting blue shared use signs, why do they
> not just do away with the law against cycling on pavements period. I'm not a fan of pavement
> cycling but it does seem
crazy
> to spend all that money marking them all up as shared use while fining people for cycling on the
> ones they haven't yet marked.
>

Some pavements are wholly unsuitable for bikes, being far too narrow. All of our paths are wide
enough to be split into two separate halves and I do use these myself on a daily basis. As most have
been converted from old railway lines, they actually go where you want to go.

Visiting certain other towns, I've seen useless undulating dual use paths that one pram would
block. I would not use these at all.
--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

X-No-Archive: yes

Simon Mason wrote:

>
> Visiting certain other towns, I've seen useless undulating dual use paths that one pram would
> block. I would not use these at all.

Locally Welwyn Garden city. A lot of the paths end in Cyclist Dismount signs which assumes the
cyclist will continue walking on the pavement. This even happens when the path has been well
designed to get you back with other traffic.

Peter

 

"Will Plummer" <[email protected]> writed in news:[email protected]:

> "Niv" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > In fact dual use facilities are generally a pain to use - not
> withstanding
>> > the risks of / to pedestrians, they often do not go where people want to
>> go
>> > (unlike roads), have poor design features and increase exposure to
>> accidents
>> > at junctions.
>>
>> I have to agree. I sometimes do a long commute home (Stevenage to
> Chesham)
>> via Milton Keynes. (I get a lift in, so not that brave). I used the MK cycle ways a few times at
>> first, but I refuse to use them.
>>
>> There are no directions given for thru' traffic, so you have no idea which way to go, all the
>> signs are for little areas of MK. The cycleways go up, down, round and all over the place, really
>> c**p if all you want is to go straight ahead and find the A4146 to Leighton Buzzard! (and then
>> the nice quiet roads around Wing, Tring, ding-a-ling).
>>
>> The main roads with all those 3 lane roundabouts are a bit hairy though,
> but
>> so far the motorists have always been fairly kind and let me get on with it. No "Oi, use the
>> cycleways" shouts so far.
>>
>> Niv.
>>
>> The MK cycleways are fun aren`t they?
>
> I use them fairly regularly, being not quite brave enough for the grid roads at peak times - they
> are fine if you`re not in too much of hurry and like to climb steep hills after losing all your
> momentum to a junction/kerb/blind bend/ pedestrian with dog on 10m lead at the bottom of the
> downhill bit. I like to view them as a "challenge" - trying to maintain a reasonable average speed
> demands intense concentration, forward planning and the ability to stop and turn on a sixpence.
> Not to mention being able to look 3 ways at once at junctions.
>
My biggest objection to them (as a non-local who was using them occasionally last year) was the lack
of signposting beyond the next suburb. I never did find the 'best' route from Wolverton to
Eaglestone without getting lost! Navigation was so much easier on the roads!

Mike, Leicester

 

"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> in E. Yorkshire wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Some pavements are wholly unsuitable for bikes, being far too narrow.
All of
> our paths are wide enough to be split into two separate halves and I
do use
> these myself on a daily basis. As most have been converted from old
railway
> lines, they actually go where you want to go.

So you have rails-to-trails conversions there too? All those I'm familiar with in North America,
whether dirt, cinder, or hard-paved, are ped-&-bike. Similarly the Old Croton Aqueduct trail.
Sidewalks are in almost all cases ped-only (with exceptions for children), and park paths are
sometimes signed for one or the other (or for horse riding), sometimes segregated (painted line or
railing), but usually just ambiguous, i.e. whatever the last policeman decides.

The trickiest, narrowest shared use experiences are bridges. Pelham Bridge -- cars, horses (police &
recreational), bikes, pedestrians (often carrying fishing poles), the only truck & bus route away
from City Is., plus a very active draw span -- that's "fun". The sidewalk (shared ped-bike) is
narrow & exists on only one side, but woe be unto those who try instead to navigate the metal
portion of the draw span. The bridge is too high for most to try to fish from (illegally), but I
increase the hazard by picking mulberries from the approach. The horses take the roadway on the
bridge itself, but share the ped-bike approach on the SW end. No railing between the sidewalk &
roadway, just the curb. But if you walk your bike along, you take up even more width. And the NE
approach has a blind curve and nothing to stop turning cars crossing the path of cyclists finding
the best beveled part of the curb to cross at -- hard to describe without a map.

Robert

 

Does "pavement" have a narrower meaning in the UK than in North America? Here it means any
hard-paved surface, be it vehicular roadway, sidewalk, other pedestrian path, playground, driveway,
or parking lot. I gather from this thread -- but maybe I'm wrong -- that in the UK it means sidewalk
or other paved outdoor walkway only. Did I guess right?

Then I take it "dual use" in this context means bicycle & pedestrian, not bicycle & motor vehicle.

Robert

 

On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:12:09 -0400, Robert Goodman scrawled: ) Does "pavement" have a narrower
meaning in the UK than in North America? ) Here it means any hard-paved surface, be it vehicular
roadway, sidewalk, ) other pedestrian path, playground, driveway, or parking lot. I gather ) from
this thread -- but maybe I'm wrong -- that in the UK it means ) sidewalk or other paved outdoor
walkway only. Did I guess right?

Colloquially, yes. I suppose technically any paved area can be a pavement.

) Then I take it "dual use" in this context means bicycle & pedestrian, ) not bicycle &
motor vehicle.

There's a distinction in the UK Highway Code between (I think) cycle LANE and cycle TRACK. A lane is
a part of a road; a track is off the road and can be "multi-use:" because it's not part of the road
then it cannot be used by motor vehicles, so "multi-use" always refers to e.g. bridle paths or
pedestrians allowed. Of course, it's more confusing than that because, in the UK, pedestrians are
sort of allowed on the road lanes too, given due care and etcetera.

J-P
--
"Welcome, our friends. You may have the arms of fat women but your work smells of men. Return to
Bangor and let the shout of revolution ring out in your gigs."

 

On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:12:09 -0400, "Robert Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Does "pavement" have a narrower meaning in the UK than in North America? Here it means any
>hard-paved surface, be it vehicular roadway, sidewalk, other pedestrian path, playground, driveway,
>or parking lot. I gather from this thread -- but maybe I'm wrong -- that in the UK it means
>sidewalk or other paved outdoor walkway only. Did I guess right?
>

Ding! Two points to your team. Yes, pavement in the UK is generally the sidewalk.

>Then I take it "dual use" in this context means bicycle & pedestrian, not bicycle & motor vehicle.

Ding! again. As part of someone's mono-buttocked (thank you Sheldon) idea of improving things, some
pavements (sidewalks) have been declared dual use by adding a blue sign showing a peddestrian and a
bike next to each other.

Tim
--

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.

 

"Robert Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Does "pavement" have a narrower meaning in the UK than in North America? Here it means any
> hard-paved surface, be it vehicular roadway, sidewalk, other pedestrian path, playground,
> driveway, or parking lot. I gather from this thread -- but maybe I'm wrong -- that in the UK it
> means sidewalk or other paved outdoor walkway only. Did I guess right?

Sidewalk

>
> Then I take it "dual use" in this context means bicycle & pedestrian, not bicycle & motor vehicle.

Yes

 

Thus spake "Robert Goodman" <[email protected]>

> Does "pavement" have a narrower meaning in the UK than in North America? Here it means any
> hard-paved surface, be it vehicular roadway, sidewalk, other pedestrian path, playground,
> driveway, or parking lot. I gather from this thread -- but maybe I'm wrong -- that in the UK it
> means sidewalk or other paved outdoor walkway only. Did I guess right?

> Then I take it "dual use" in this context means bicycle & pedestrian, not bicycle & motor vehicle.

> Robert

Pavement in Britain = Sidewalk in US Carriageway in Britain = Pavement US

This thread is discussing sidewalk cycling.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.

 

Thus spake Tim Hall <[email protected]>

> On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:12:09 -0400, "Robert Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Does "pavement" have a narrower meaning in the UK than in North America? Here it means any
> >hard-paved surface, be it vehicular roadway, sidewalk, other pedestrian path, playground,
> >driveway, or parking lot. I gather from this thread -- but maybe I'm wrong -- that in the UK it
> >means sidewalk or other paved outdoor walkway only. Did I guess right?
> >

> Ding! Two points to your team. Yes, pavement in the UK is generally the sidewalk.

> >Then I take it "dual use" in this context means bicycle & pedestrian, not bicycle & motor
> >vehicle.

> Ding! again. As part of someone's mono-buttocked (thank you Sheldon) idea of improving things,
> some pavements (sidewalks) have been declared dual use by adding a blue sign showing a peddestrian
> and a bike next to each other.

Sometimes they also use coloured tarmac for the cyclists. The colour fades in time and the
distinction is seldom observed by pedestrians, which tends to tempt cyclists onto the
'pedestrian' parts.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.

 

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just wondering, seeing as so many pavements are now sprouting blue shared use signs, why do they
> not just do away with the law against cycling on pavements period. I'm not a fan of pavement
> cycling but it does seem
crazy
> to spend all that money marking them all up as shared use while fining people for cycling on the
> ones they haven't yet marked.
>
> Tony
>
I've always been of the opinion that common-sense is the way to go with riding on pavements. If the
road is dangerous, if there is space on the pavement, not many pedestrians etc then why not. When on
the pavement I'm prepared to stop, slow down or get off if necessary giving right of way to peds. I
can't see any problem in this at all. I would be *extremely* annoyed if I was issued with any sort
of fine for doing this - a warning I'd argue with but can see why it might be given. Let's face it -
if a pedestrian was walking along pushing people and flailing his/her arms there wouldn't be calls
to ban pedestrians from pavements. If we are all courteous and polite to each other then there's no
reason why we can't share. That's all I ask for from motorists on the roads too but we know what
they are like and the odds are heavily stacked in their favour in the event of an accident. Much
more so than cyclists' "advantage" over pedestrians.

 

"Stephen \(aka steford\)" <[email protected]> wrote
> I've always been of the opinion that common-sense is the way to go with riding on pavements. If
> the road is dangerous, if there is space on the pavement, not many pedestrians etc then why not.
> When on the pavement I'm prepared to stop, slow down or get off if necessary giving right of way
> to peds.
This is a sensible approach, and one that should be built in to the highway code: power gives way to
unpowered, so peds have right of way over bikes, bikes over cars, etc. and if this doesn't suit any
group, then they should lobby for "single usage" lanes (e.g., Motorways) - but anywhere mixed usage
exists, implement this rule (I think California has this rule to some extent).

 

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > Does "pavement" have a narrower meaning in the UK than in North
America?
> > Here it means any hard-paved surface, be it vehicular roadway,
sidewalk,
> > other pedestrian path, playground, driveway, or parking lot.

> Pavement in Britain = Sidewalk in US Carriageway in Britain = Pavement US

No, "pavement" in the USA has the broader meaning described above. "Carriageway" would be "roadway".

 

"Rory" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Stephen \(aka steford\)" <[email protected]> wrote
> > I've always been of the opinion that common-sense is the way to go with riding on pavements. If
> > the road is dangerous, if there is space on the pavement, not many pedestrians etc then why not.
> > When on the pavement
I'm
> > prepared to stop, slow down or get off if necessary giving right of way
to
> > peds.
> This is a sensible approach, and one that should be built in to the highway code: power gives way
> to unpowered, so peds have right of way over bikes, bikes over cars, etc. and if this doesn't suit
> any group, then they should lobby for "single usage" lanes (e.g., Motorways) - but anywhere mixed
> usage exists, implement this rule (I think California has this rule to some extent).

Yeh I think this works in the absence of real provision. In Japan my mate was orderd by a cop to get
*on* the pavement instead of a busy section of dual carriageway. The only people cycling on the
roads there are non-Japanese. Always thought it was nice to be able to cycle on both - which is why
I do it here if I have to because of danger, traffic, one-way streets, short cuts etc. Of course a
dedicated network of well maintained, clean and safe cycle paths would be best ...